What is a soul?

The soul in a word, is your Conscience.Soul - The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.Conscience - motivation deriving logically from ethical or moral principles that govern a person's thoughts and actionsOne synonym for soul is - personality - the complex of all the attributes--behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental--that characterize a unique individual; "their different reactions reflected their very different personalities"; "it is his nature to help others"Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.

Ya got me worried now. That's almost what I said.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

So here we are again, at the start of another round of question and non answer - but hey, it’s amazing how many people on here have the same problem with certain individuals. But I guess they figure, like I do, that you can tell a lot about an idea by the company it keeps.I think we should start at the beginning. No I haven’t, either to the choice or the statement. You have chosen to lecture me continually about your alternative interpretation of what I say - but as I said, you can tell a lot about an idea by the company it keeps.But 'higher' than what, I wonder? A series of chemical reactions, perhaps? Well let’s take a look at chemical reactions. In thread Message 146, when asked, “How does a species of fern learn?”, you reply:- In thread Message 38, you make the following statement:- Well indeed. I think I’ve covered that point a few times on this thread already. But wait . you say something different to me. I say, I exist as a series of chemical reactions, whereas you say, I exist to be a series of chemical reactions. There it is, the purpose, the intent. But where is it, this purpose, this intent?I think I more or less asked this in my last post:- Perhaps it slipped your mind to answer when you were penning your reply, so I’ll ask again, where is your evidence for the intent or purpose you refer to? Or if you prefer to avoid the ”evidence’ question, at least offer some insight into the basis of your belief. I feel certain you won’t wish to be so discourteous as to fail to answer the same direct question twice. I’m really not the best person to offer explanations of ToE, but some parts of it are so basic, even I can get my meagre intellect around them.So where should I start? Well at it’s most basic, ToE teaches that those life forms that are best adapted to their environment have the best chance of survival. So when we look at a species, we will tend to see common traits or behavioural patterns that persist within that species. And at the level below that, we might ask, why do life forms strive to survive? Well it would be pretty odd if species that exhibited behavioural patterns that gave the appearance of striving were less likely to survive than those that did not.Further, it would be surprising if evolution did not favour brain architectures that ”learned’ those behavioural patterns that were most helpful in the ”survival race’. So when I talk of humility, it is not as the ideal you suggest, it is simply that I have learned that the non-threatening humility I favour serves me very well in terms of functioning effectively within my circle of family, friends and work colleagues.First off, I find getting on with others is much less stressful than not getting on. Less stress equals greater health, which in turn equals greater chances of survival. And of course, getting on with members of the opposite sex greatly enhances all our chances of having our genes survive for another generation.So I have followed the car analogy all the way to its root motivation, if you’ll pardon the pun. How can you possibly make a statement like that? Each time somebody expresses a view you disagree with, you either ignore them or tell them it is only their belief, or even tell them that they actually believe something different to what they think they believe. How can you have any idea how people ”work’, if you rarely pay them the common courtesy of listening (and considering) what they tell you? It is a mystery in the same way that anything we do not fully understand has some mystery attached to it. However, nothing that is being revealed has so far caused me to question my understanding of what I am. Actually that’s not quite true. It begins to look like I am even more of a series of chemical reactions than I had supposed myself to be, bereft even of free will perhaps. Of course it makes you uncomfortable, which is understandable. Much of what we are learning in this area threatens your belief structure. It would be a very strange person indeed who felt comfortable with such a threat. I, on the other hand, am real comfortable with the idea that should anyone visit this thread, they are more than capable of deciding for themselves which contributions they consider to have value, and those that don’t.Edited by dogrelata, : No reason given.

Where is your evidence that you are what you claim? This is my entire point. Your view is not based on evidence that proves anything one way or another and you somehow presume to ask me for evidence as if I have something less than you to offer. Any notion as such I find nothing less than humorous.
If you wish to state that it is your belief that we are nothing more than biological machines and that all we are is a process I can accept that as long as you acknowledge the that it is your belief. However you seem deluded in your view that facts somehow support you. Your belief interprets the facts. I do not see them from the same perspective and yours is no better than mine. Unless you wish to profess that your interpretation of facts, such as they may be, is the right one? So you need to get it on with the opposite sex to pass your genes.
This is the reason you are motivated to this action. Ah...a romantic
This is your personal explanation of your motivations? Now exactly how would someone elses beliefs threaten mine?
As my explanation of my belief has been lacking for you, so has yours to me. That you believe yours or someone elses interpretation of information is more valid than anothers and somehow invalidates their point of view is interesting. Your faith it would appear lies in science and that it will bring you the answers you seek. I am sure you are. This thread is faith and belief. You profess to found your belief in facts. This is not the case. Sooner or later you will recognise that you interpret information based upon your belief.

2ice_baked_taters. re: Have you considered your irrational bias in this matter of belief? You seem to want to project YOUR principles of belief onto others. Is this fair? Believing in something does not make it a fact, because belief is a personal issue, while facts are transpersonal. Gravity is a fact, not a belief, and I can say it applies to you as well as to me. A soul, on the other hand, is only a personal thing, a religious belief, and therefore it has no transpersonal value.”Hoot Mon Edited by Hoot Mon, : typos

You need to think about the nature of what you claim.
You and I are a fact just as gravity is. We know things about these phenomenon and these characteristics we have identified we call facts. Do these facts define all there is to know about these phenomenon or the nature of them?
Here is the key difference. You hold the BELIEF that things
are only what we know. That they are nothing more. That they are only the facts about them we have come to understand through science. It apears you place your FAITH in science.
I accept scientific facts that we have learned but understand there is much more. I do not look to science to tell me how to feel. I do not look to science to understand my feelings or emotions. I simply know this. It cannot be proven scientifically. If I tell you I hate you what proof have you other than my word?
In our case I choose to define the source of what we are as a soul. A soul to me is in a sense gestalt. Soul is the source of and encompasses all that we are or will be. It is the theory I accept at this time to explain what science falls far short of. The harder we look, the more there is to see, the more we realize how little we know.
You and I are facts. Definitions will vary based on point of view (belief). You will place you convictions/faith in your point of view/belief. And you are correct. Your belief does not make it fact.

Don't you see what you're saying here? You are confusing transpersonal facts”age, heigth, weight, education, career”with personal beliefs”soul, spirit, savior, god. Just because YOU believe in souls and spirits does not mean they have any transpersonal value, because beliefs are entirely personal. You might even have a personal relationship with God, but whatever that is simply ENDS THERE. I don't have to BELIEVE in your weight, for example, I only accept that measure of your existence as a pure fact. (Boy, do get the feeling that I'm wasting my time!) Agreed absolutely!btw: Do you have to BELIEVE in oxygen to avoid suffocation?”Hoot Mon

First of all, I lied. I didn’t really expect you to answer anything. I’ve seen nothing in the way you have conducted yourself on any of the threads I’ve seen that would lead me to expect otherwise. But I’ll return to your conduct a little later.I have made my position very clear, and I think you know that and understand exactly where I am coming from. However, your agenda appears to be to subvert and detract, choosing this path rather than one of putting your own beliefs up for discussion. That’s your call, but it casts you in a very unfavourable light, as others have told you somewhat more forcibly than I.My view, as I have stated several times, is that I am a complex biological machine. There are mountains of testable evidence to support this view. I think in legal jargon, this would be termed, beyond reasonable doubt, although like anything else, it may be subject to review in light of fresh evidence. Of course there are very many who would argue that I am not solely this, yourself included. Great, bring me your evidence and let me examine it.As ever you miss the point, or choose to miss the point. Are you disingenuous or simply being obtuse? My guess is you are disingenuous. You are suggesting that I believe the evidence that supports the biological “machineness” of me disproves the possibility that I may be more. I do not believe that, and don’t believe I have ever claimed such. What I do believe is that if somebody wishes to propose otherwise, let him or her present either the evidence, or the basis of that belief.This is what I have asked you to do on several occasions, but will not do so again as there are more interesting avenues to explore with other members who understand the value of constructive debate. Yip. Funnily enough that’s what the science of biology has to say. Of course I should really say that this is solely my personal interpretation of how the human reproductive process works, and in deference to those who believe that storks bring babies, I should acknowledge that their view is no less valid than mine. You’re the one who said you weren’t comfortable, not I. But if you want an answer, re-read your contributions to all threads you have posted to in the last six months. It is an endless tirade of sniping, detracting and putting down of others. I am reminded of these little dogs that snap and snarl at anything that comes their way, aggressive behaviour being their best defence to the threats they perceive all around them. Oh I see. Perhaps I should believe your interpretation of information above all others. Right, got you now. You’ll have to excuse me, I’m none too bright.Here was me thinking that if my beliefs clashed with another, I might try seeking the advice of an ”independent arbiter’. An arbiter, who isn’t perfect or always right, but has a pretty good track record in these matters. An arbiter, who places its methodology and findings in the public domain, so that others may examine and test them.I can see now what a ludicrous idea this is. All I need do is consult the essential being that is 2ice, an entity unencumbered by the limitations of the scientific method (or the need to explain anything). The concept sounds vaguely familiar, but I just can’t place it . Okay, it’s time to say my goodbyes.As I said earlier, I’ve been checking out other threads to which you’ve been contributing, although I use the word very loosely. The bottom line is the more time I spend reading your posts, the more troll-like do they appear. As such, I am going to follow the lead of others in these situations, and make it clear that henceforth, I will not be responding to any of your posts.But I wish to leave you a small parting gift, which I hope you will find beneficial. The thing is, I think I’ve just discovered the root of you’re confusion as to what “you” are.In Message 159, at the end of the fifteenth paragraph, ReverendDG doesn’t actually say you are a soul.Bye.

You’re obviously a lot smarter than me! It took me more posts than I care to mention to reach this conclusion.

What you are saying is that you know beyond a doubt that there is a clear difference. It is your belief. What I am saying is that no one knows.If beliefs are personal...how is it we share them? Feelings are personal too. I seem to be able to detect yours. Ah but wait....show me your feelings. Proof is what I need.I understand my point quite well. You hold a belief. You express faith in it by your actions. Your conviction is expressed in your exasperation....but of course I have no evidence of that...then I need none in this forum topic....theoretically

2iced_baked_taters: You have a condition known to occur in true believers as "belief fixation." Your world is so belief-orientd that you cannot appreciated facts unless you "believe in them." I don't see anything wrong with that...so long as you understand that it is entirely a personal matter for you. The fact that I don't believe in Tooth Fairies is NOT a belief. Please! And if you happen to believe in them that does not make them a fact for me. Ay?Question: If I am willing to accept your personal belief that you have a soul, are you willing to accept the fact that I don't?I can factually say that I have a heart and a brain, even though I have never seen either one. But just because you believe you have a soul does not necessarily mean that I have one too. I've heard people say that their dogs have souls. But I have yet to hear a dog say that it believes it has one. (I'm pretty sure, however, that my dog "believes" in squirrels. All I have to do is to mention them and he is rip-snorting ready for a squirrel communion.)”Hoot MonEdited by Hoot Mon, : blips

LMOA...I'm sorry but what does this forum topic have to do with facts?
This forum topic is FAITH and BELIEF.
One either believes in something or one knows it to be fact. Facts do not support belief. Facts are facts. What is, is.
There is a huge difference between accepting the body of knowledge we have for what it is and deluding ones self into thinking we have it all figured out. If you think that all we are is what we know you are a deluded person who ignores the vain history of man.This topic is about what you believe about what you acknowledge you do not know or understand and your faith in it. Now if you would like to profess you have no faith or belief I could accept that. Belief in facts is no belief at all.
I myself do not know what we truly are so I choose the concept of soul to encompass this. It makes sense to me based upon what I understand about us so far. It is the "theory" I embrace at this time. Well of course. This is my entire point. In my discussion with dogrelata he has challenged me to support my belief. I have stated the reasoning for my belief. He has rejected my answer. He also believes that facts, as they may be, favor his view somehow. I recognise this as not being true. I recognise his references but do not share his same point of view about them.
The most important thing is to acknowledge what we do not know and realise from tha point on is belief.

Would it be more honest, having acknowledged the not knowing, to dispense with the believing?

No actually one would deny that belief exists. What is, is. Belief is a part of what we are. To deny it's existence is not honest. I would like to correct an error in my response to your above question.
What I meant to say was that I recognise your belief that you have no soul and your belief that it is a fact. Of course If I were to ask you for your proof of the nature you demand you would be at a loss to prove that faith exists and I would be inclined to not believe you. You are in a catch 22 with faith and belief my friend. There is no reasoning it away. We would have no civilzation as we know it without faith and belief. Nations are built upon it. Comunities thrive on it. Morality is defined by it. We live life according to what we believe.
What is, is.Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : a clarification

And your proof is...? Faith and belief are the business of the bicameral mind, as described by Julian Jaynes. When humans arise from their primitive bicamerality they become conscious and then are able to deal with facts. The fact that you have a faith fixation and must believe in everything you say and do is evidence of your bicamerality. Thank you. Case closed.”Hoot Mon